The Daily Parker

Politics, Weather, Photography, and the Dog

Photo of the Day

Another reprise, this time of Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg:

Again, the differences may not be apparent. Here's the first publication from last July:

The revised image has a smidge more contrast and a skeech more saturation, and I dodged out some of the darker areas a snape or two. Unlike some other shots I've put up recently, this one came from a large (6 Mpix) digital original, so further refinements should be easy and effective.

Photo of the Day

(Aside: Apparently the Photo of the Day has become a feature of The Daily Parker. Oh, the pressure.)

Today, another comparison between a photo I printed in a darkroom with paper and chemicals and the same photo "printed" using digital image editing tools. This is a friend from high school, photographed in March 1986 on Kodak Tri-X film, and printed on 8"x10" Ilford #3 paper:

Voilà the rescanned negative processed through Lightroom:

As with the other photo, I didn't duplicate the original print exactly. Both modern versions show more detail and a greater range of tones than the paper prints, partially because of the generation loss from scanning a print, but also because printing a photo on an easel is a sloppy process. After six or seven attempts, with a cycle time of about 20 minutes, using smelly chemicals, after school, in a darkroom in the school basement, with homework to do, I just moved on. With digital editing, if I don't like the result I can simply change it. Burned in a spot too much? In 1986, throw the print out and start over. In 2011, hit +Z.

In fact, just looking at the comparison, I see a couple more things I should do...which will take about 5 minutes. And no smelly chemicals.

Thanks to the model, Lauren Spain-Bondi, for permission to publish.

Photoshop Version 0.0

In May 1986, I went to Boston with my school choir (all 130 of us, plus chaperons) and took about 240 photos. Here's one of them:

When I got back home, I printed the shot. This took about five hours, and some help from Mr. Sylvester, the photography teacher, because instead of Photoshop I used an actual darkroom, with an easel and Ilford #3 paper. Here's the result:

Now, in 2011, I've finally scanned the negative, and in about 20 minutes with Adobe Lightroom, produced a reasonable facsimile:

Not only did the electronic editing take less time than the paper-and-developer method, but it also smelled a lot better.

Public Garden, Boston, 10 May 1986. Kodak Tri-X 400, ISO 320, exposure unrecorded, Canon T-90.

Rescanning the tulip

Monday night I played around with one of my favorite slides from 1986. Today at lunch I rescanned the slide at 3600 dpi, after giving it a good dusting, and with the scanner's Kodachrome corrections. Here's the result:

For comparison, here's my previous attempt, using the 1200 dpi scan I made during my first pass:

The differences are much more apparent at full size, especially since the top photo's dimensions are nearly four times longer than the bottom one's.

Public Garden, Boston, 10 May 1986. Kodachrome 64. Exposure unrecorded.